Download Critical Overview of Participatory Video

DRAFT not for publication or distribution
Abstract
The information and communications technology of participatory video has been used increasingly
over the last fifty years due to its claimed efficacy in generating development at the level of the
individual, group and society. Participatory video is a set of techniques to involve a group or
community in shaping and creating their own film (Lunch & Lunch 2006). Unlike other kinds of
film-making participatory video involves handing-over control of the film-production process to
inexpert users to enable them to express and represent themselves, communicating to others about
issues affecting their lives. It is claimed that among other benefits, the process of participatory
video can enhance participants' self-confidence and self-esteem, individual and collective agency,
and serve as an effective mechanism to amplify the voices of marginalised groups to influence the
decision-making processes affecting their lives. In recent years writing about participatory video
has generally become less celebratory and more critical, questioning among other things, the extent
to which control is actually handed over and scrutinising claims that participatory video generates
transformational social change.
Introduction
In their practical guide to using video for development Jackie Shaw and Clive Robertson (1997)
describe participatory video as using a process similar to the conscientisation advocated by Paulo
Freire in Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970). By producing films about their own social
circumstances and reflecting on the causes of social injustice they found participants learnt to use
the camera to 'read the world' critically and to better articulate the change they want to see in the
world. This Freirian logic and emancipatory intent is referred to in all of the other seminal texts on
participatory video including Braden & Huong (1998), White (2003) and Lunch & Lunch (2006).
Shaw and Robertson describe participatory video as an activity used predominately with
disadvantaged or marginalised groups that, “utilizes video as a social and community-based tool
for individual and group development … to develop their confidence and self-esteem, to encourage
them to express themselves creatively, to develop a critical awareness and to provide a means for
them to communicate with others”.
There is however no universally agreed definition as to what constitutes participatory video (Salazar
& Dagron, 2009). The term has been used to describe some quite distinct practices and some uses of
video in social settings that seem closely related to participatory video are not described as such
(High, Singh, Pertheram & Nemes, 2012). Reflecting the diversity of existing participatory video
process one network of practitioners (PV-Net, 2008) has defined participatory video as, “a
collaborative approach to working with a group or community in shaping and creating their own
film, in order to open spaces for learning and communication and to enable positive change and
transformation”.
1
DRAFT not for publication or distribution
Description
With the caveat that there is no definitive or universally agreed 'correct way' to do participatory
video, it is possible to outline some common elements of participatory video process as detailed in
practical 'how-to' guides such as those produced by Shaw & Robertson (1997) and Lunch & Lunch
(2006). An external facilitator or team arrives with the equipment necessary to make a film. Group
participants are engaged in discussions about social issues that concern them whilst taking part in
practical exercises to familiarise themselves with the functioning of cameras, tripods, sound and
lighting equipment. Discussion takes place to determine what films the group will make and
participants collaborate in the production of a storyboard/script which is then used to guide
participants as they take up the cameras and other equipment and begin producing their own film.
Central to most participatory practice are screenings of the rough footage and of the final film to
engage participants in a dialogic process of collective deliberation designed to raise critical
consciousness (Freire, 1970) about the social issues raised in the film.
In the past, when film cameras and editing equipment were larger and much more expensive, once
participants had captured film footage, and perhaps produced a paper-edit (Benest, 2010) a
collaborative discussion would take place to determine the film structure and contents. However all
of the film and equipment would then be taken away by the facilitating team and the editing would
take place at a remote editing suite with the final film being delivered back to the 'participants' at a
later date. More recently the size and cost of cameras and editing equipment has reduced sharply
making it possible for editing to be done on a laptop, by participants themselves, at the same
location and at the same time as the filming. It has also become affordable for the cameras, editing
software and laptops to remain with the group after the initial period of capacity-building an
eventually which can reduce on-going dependency on external facilitators and so enhance
sustainability of benefits (Colom, 2009).
Whilst all participatory video involves a group of people making their own film, projects differ
radically with regard to what degree of control 'participants' have over which elements of the film's
conception, planning, filming, editing and distribution. In the ground-breaking Fogo Process (see
next section) 'participants' co-determined the script and appeared in the film voicing their concerns,
but they were not responsible for operating the cameras or the editing equipment (Quarry, 1994).
Conversely it is now common for the 'participants' to be the only ones allowed to touch the cameras
or editing equipment - in order to hand over as much control as possible to the new film-makers and for the external facilitators to be relegated to support and advice roles.
Longer-term participatory video engagements that build permanent local film-making capacity are
arguably more effective at sustaining the political spaces (Cornwall, 2004) that groups are able open
to open up through the use of participatory video (Colom, 2009). Examples of permanent local
film-making capacity include Video SEWA, the community video units developed by Drishti in
India and the community video hubs developed by InsightShare in South Africa, Peru and London
(Colom, 2009).
2
DRAFT not for publication or distribution
Some participatory video is primarily process-focused meaning that it is concerned with the benefit
of group dialogue and collective meaning-making claimed to be inherent in the collaborative
production process, rather than with the production of a slick and 'professional-looking' film. Other
participatory video processes are more product-focused with more investment in the 'production
values' of the resulting film, especially where the film is intended to play a role in advocacy for
social change. In the former case the primary intended audience is the participants themselves and
the participatory process is valued as a means of developing the skills, self-confidence and shared
values and purpose of the group. It such cases the quality or 'professionalism' of the resulting film is
not a priority. In other cases the primary intended audience is external – such as government - and
the participatory video process is valued as a means of influencing the minds and behaviour of those
with decision-making power to influence the lives of participants. The process/product distinction is
not binary. Many initiatives value both to varying degrees and some participatory video processes
that begin as internally-focused subsequently develop a desire as the process unfolds to also
represent themselves and their issues to external audiences.
Affordances of Video for Development
Whilst it is possible to generate similar outcomes using technologies such as participatory
photography or theatre of the oppressed it is claimed that participatory video has particular
'affordances' as an ICT tool for development.
Originated by Gibson (1977, 1979) to refer to the actionable properties of a item, the term
'affordances' was appropriated by Donald Norman (1988) and is now used extensively in the field of
technology design to signify aspects of a technology that invite, allow or enable a user to act in a
particular way. It is in this sense of the word that it is claimed that particular properties of
participatory video 'afford' specific action for development. This section highlights some of them.
New users of video often discover that a digital camera and tripod affords them the excuse and the
status-power to approach and question others in a way that they had not previously perceived as
possible for them (Shaw & Robertson, 1997). They may also find that holding a digital camera with
the red recording light on, affords to them a considered and deliberate response, which in the
absence of the camera they might not have been afforded (Roberts, forthcoming). This experience
of technology use can have the effect of raising users' confidence and sense of agency.
The ability of the video format to replay footage instantaneously has been likened to Lacan's mirro
stage. back "our reality" (Lunch & Lunch, 2006).
the playback function creates a lively feedback loop and serves to engender reflexivity
The audio-visual nature of digital film effectively levels the playing field for people with varying
levels of (print) literacies allowing participants with asymmetric levels of educational attainment to
collaborate in film production. This is not to claim that other dimensions of disadvantage such as
3
DRAFT not for publication or distribution
gender, class or ethnicity are disappeared by presence of participatory video.
Participatory Video also lends itself well to M&E (MSC) and to use alongside otherparticipaotry
practices such as PLA and PAR.
Participatory action research can also be read as development as, “It seeks to bring together action
and reflection, theory and practice, in participation with others, in the pursuit of practical solutions
to issues of pressing concern to people, and more generally the flourishing of individual persons
and their communities” (Reason & Bradbury, 2006; 2).
As such participatory action research has the potential for 'conscientisation' through a process of
collective self-inquiry and reflection (Freire, 1970) in a process designed to enhance people's ability
to 'experience their capability and power to produce knowledge autonomously' (Fals-Borda, 1991;
17).
History
The earliest recorded example of participatory video-making is perhaps the 1967 work by the
people of Fogo Island, Newfoundland, facilitated by Donald Snowden and Colin Low. The
film-makers set out to show that poverty could not simply be reduced to economic deprivation and
that factors such as rural isolation and the inability to access information and communication media
also needed to be addressed (Quarry, 1994). The Fogo Process began by filming community
members' views and screening them to members of other isolated communities on the island.
Thirty-five screenings to a combined audience of 3,000 islanders (60% of the total population) were
used to identify a number of key common issues of concern. The islander's film was then shown to
the Premier of Canada and the Minister of Fisheries recorded a filmed response to play back to the
community and from this dialogue a revised programme of island development was agreed. The
Fogo Process became a communication for development prototype in using media to promote
dialogue and social change and has since been used in many location around the world.
Alternative roots for participatory video practice can be identified in the community arts movement
of the 1970s and in the theory-practice of Paulo Freire (1970, 1974). Shaw and Robertson (1997)
note that video's potential as a tool for social action and development was recognised early in the
1970s by community workers, social workers and community arts workers resulting in the
development of a vibrant independent video sector in the UK and other countries. Much of this
work concerned the use of video as a tool for groups to critically reflect on their social
circumstances and act collectively to tackle injustice. Martín-Baró (1996; 56) described Freire's
praxis of reflection upon action as a method through which human beings are able to interpret and
change their reality, “an active process of dialogue in which there is a gradual decoding of the
world, as people grasp the mechanisms of oppression and dehumanisation which opens up new
possibilities for action.”
4
DRAFT not for publication or distribution
However the critical intent to facilitate transformative social change that characterised much
participatory video of the 1970s and 1980s was arguably compromised in the 1990s when
participatory methods were co-opted by neo-liberal institutions including the World Bank and
participation was made a condition of financial support by many institutional funders (Cooke &
Kothari, 2001). The 'tyranny' of this top-down 'compulsory participation' forced all development
actors to claim that all of their initiatives were 'participatory'. This resulted in a proliferation of
sham and tokenistic 'participation' claims in project plans and funding bids in order to conform to
funder dictates. The effect of this 'compulsory participation' on practice was a preponderance of the
use of so-called participatory video that was devoid of transformative intent as well as the
commissioning of 'participatory video' in order to legitimise top-down process (Shaw, 2010).
More recently there has been a concerted attempt to reconstruct and recover a participatory practice
that builds critical consciousness (Benest, 2010) and political agency and capabilities (Williams
2004) and aims once again at social transformation. This movement 'from tranny to transformation'
(Hickey & Mohan 2004) does not deny that fake-participation was - and continues to be - used to
cloak much poor and counter-productive practice. What is does deny is that existence of
fake-participation negates the value of authentic-participation or its emancipatory potential when in
the hands of grassroots organisations such organisations such as Video SEWA (Stuart & Summer
1993) & Video Volunteers or Insightshare partners?
Analysis & Criticisms
Practitioners claim a wide range of positive personal, group and societal benefits can be secured
through the use of video for development. Stuart & Bery (1996) and Braden & Huong (1998) are
among scholars who claim that participatory video enables a group to identify and agree issues of
common concern and to voice them effectively to more powerful decision makers. However as has
been pointed out (Shaw, 2012) the fact that an issue has been voiced does not mean that it has been
heard, and the fact that it has been heard does not mean that it will be acted upon; in fact allowing
many voices to be 'heard' can also be a cynical tactic of oppression in Marcuse's (1965) sense of
'repressive tolerance'.
Participatory video has been used extensively in development work as a pedagogical tool in part,
due to the research finding that content from audiovisual materials is recalled four or five times
better than heard materials and nine time better than read material (Fraser & Villet, 1994) and that
behavioural change is most effective when modelled on the activities of people that look like
ourselves and to whom we can most easily relate (Bandura, 1995). However this says nothing about
the social or developmental value of the video content; video can be equally effective at relaying
reactionary content as progressive content. As Mosse (2001) argues the appropriation of
participatory methods by multi-lateral agencies and multi-national companies provides telling
evidence that participatory methods are perfectly compatible with top-down planning systems and
neo-liberal agendas (Mosse, 2001).
5
DRAFT not for publication or distribution
Conclusion
Participatory video is no quick fix for development (Lunch & Lunch, 2006; Shaw, 2012). It can be
used to build individual and collective agency and critical consciousness raising for social change
(Shaw & Robertson, 1997) to confront gender injustice (Protz, 1998; Kelly, 2004; Singh, 2010) and
as part of people's self-action to claim rights or entitlements (Benest, 2010). However it can also
used for the purposes of what Freire called 'domestication': to produce promotional videos to
legitimate top-down non-participatory decision-making (Braden & Mayo, 1999 in Shaw, 2012) or
otherwise be co-opted by funders and institutional development in ways that dilute and corrupt the
original radical intent of participation (Cooke & Kothari, 2001; Mohan, 2001).
In order to recover and repoliticise a progressive participatory practise, including that of
participatory video, it is necessary to embed practice in wider politically processes (Kelly, 2004)
and extend engagements beyond short one-off projects (Colom, 2009). Only by making a conscious
return to a focus on raising critical consciousness (Waddington & Mohan, 2004) and by building
political agency and political capabilities (Williams, 2004) will it be possible to recover the
emancipatory potential of participatory video.
We should neither demonise nor deify technology (Freire, 2001) but rather seek to appropriate it
critically and adapt it creatively to the task of transformational development. Like other
technologies video has the potential to be a tool either for oppression or for liberation. In order to
resist 'domestication' by the World Bank and structures of neo-liberal 'development' and in order to
realise video's emancipatory potential participatory video needs to be applied with conscious,
critical intent; that is to say that practitioners themselves must be critically conscious in order to
enable participants to effectively expose and challenge the hidden power-interests that structure
underdevelopment.
When used critically by practitioners and participants to challenge domination and create contexts
for political and social transformation (Walsh, 2012) participatory video has valuable affordances to
enable communities to produce and disseminate knowledge that can effectively challenge dominant
practices. Evidence suggests that participatory video is most effective when used as one aspect of a
broader and longer-term strategy to build the necessary agency and political capabilities for
producing social change (Williams, 2004; Colom, 2009; Walsh, 2012).
6
DRAFT not for publication or distribution
Bibliography:
Bandura, Albert (1995) Self-Efficacy in Changing Societies, Cambridge, CUP.
Benest, Gareth (2010) A Rights-Based Approach to Participatory Video, Oxford, Insightshare.
Branden, Su & Huong, Than (1998) Video for Development, Oxford, Oxfam.
Braden, S. and M. Mayo (1999). Culture, community development and representation.
Community development journal 34(3).
Colom, Anna (2009) Participatory Video and Empowerment: The role of Participatory Video in
enhancing the political capability of grass-roots communities in participatory development,
unpublished masters dissertation, London, SOAS.
Cooke, Bill & Kothari, Uma (2001) Participation: the New Tyranny, London, Zed.
Cornwall, A., (2004) Spaces for Transformation? Reflections on issues of power and
difference in participation in development, in Hickey, S. and Mohan, G.
Participation: From Tyranny to Transformation? London, Zed Books.
Fals-Borda, Orlando (1998) People's Participation: Challenges Ahead, London, Intermediate
Technology Publications.
Fals-Borda, Orlando & Rahman Mohammad (1991) Action and Knowledge: breaking the monopoly
with participatory action research, London, Intermediate Technology Press.
Florisbello, Glauco & Guijt, Irene (2004) Participatory Municipal Development Plans in Brazil, in
Hickey, Samuel & Mohan, Giles (2004) Participation: from Tyranny to Transformation,
London, Zed.
Fraser & Villet (1994) Communication; a key to human development, Rome, FAO.
7
DRAFT not for publication or distribution
Freire, Paulo (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed, NewYork, Continuum.
Freire, Paulo (1972) Cultural Action for Freedom, Middlesex, Penguin.
Freire, Paulo (1974) Education for Critical Consciousness, NewYork, Continuum.
Freire, Paulo (2001) Pedagogy of Freedom, London, Rowman & Littlefield.
Gibson, James (1977) The Theory of Affordances in Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing, Eds. Robert
Shaw and John Bransford, London, OUP.
Gibson, James (1979) The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, New Jersey, Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Guijt, Irene & Shah, Meerah (1998) The Myth of Community: gender issues in participatory
development. London, Intermediate Technology Publications.
Hickey, Samuel & Mohan, Giles (2004) Participation: from Tyranny to Transformation, London,
Zed.
High, Chris (2005). Working Group paper In: XXI Congress of the European Society for Rural
Sociology, 22-26 Aug 2005, Keszthely, Hungary.
Kindon, Sarah, Pain, Rachel & Kesby, Mike (2007) Participatory Action Research Approaches and
Methods: Connecting People, Participation and Place, Oxon, Routledge.
Lunch, Nick & Lunch Chris (2006) Insights into Participatory Video, Oxford, Insight.
McIntyre, Alice (2008) Participatory Action Research, London, Sage.
Martín-Baró, Ignacio (1996) Writing for a Liberation Psychology, Boston, Harvard.
Milne, E.J. et al (2012) Handbook of Participatory Video, Plymouth, AltaMira.
Mohan, Giles (2001) Beyond Participation: Strategies for Deeper Empowerment, in Cooke &
Kothari, Participation: The New Tyranny, London, Zed.
Mosse, David (2001) 'People's Knowledge', Power and Patronage in Cooke & Kothari,
Participation: The New Tyranny, London, Zed.
Quarry, Wendy & Ramirez, Ricardo (2009) Communication for Another Development, London,
Zed.
Shaw, Jackie & Robertson, Clive (1997). Participatory video: A practical guide to using video
8
DRAFT not for publication or distribution
creatively in group development work. London, Routledge.
Shaw, Jacqueline (2012) Beyond Empowerment Inspiration: Interrogating the Gap
between the Ideals and Practice Reality of Participatory Video in E. J. Milne, C. Mitchell, and N.
de
Lange (eds.) Handbook of Participatory Video, Altamira Press
Singh, Namita (2010) Videoactive Girls: Projecting Girl Power. Global Fund for Children.
www.projectinggirlpower.org
Stuart, S & Bery, R (1996) Powerful Women Grass-Roots Communicators: participatory video in
Bangladesh in Women Transforming Communications, Thousand Oaks, Sage.
Stuart, S & Summer, R (1993) The Power of Video in the hands of Grassroots Women.
www.c4c.org/about/videoSEWA.html
Waddington, Mark & Mohan, Giles (2004) Falling Forward: Going Beyond PRA and Imposed
Froms of Participation in Hickey, Samuel & Mohan, Giles (2004) Participation: from
Tyranny to Transformation, London, Zed.
White, Shirley (2003) Participatory Video: Images that Transform and Empower, London, Sage.
Williams, G., 2004, Evaluating participatory development: tyranny, power and
(re)politicisation
Third World Quarterly, 25(3
).
9